Political predictions are a hazardous pastime, but I think it likely that Keir Starmer will just about survive the resignation of Anneliese Dodds as international development minister. In fact, she has probably done him a favour.
Ms Dodds, who once unsuccessfully occupied the senior post of shadow chancellor earlier on in Starmer’s leadership of the Labour Party, was appointed as a Minister of state for International Development, as well as for Women and Equalities, following the party’s general election triumph last year. Until yesterday she was entitled to attend Cabinet, though was not a full member.
No doubt the voters in her Oxford East constituency will back their MP in her principled stand against Starmer’s announcement this week that the defence budget is to be boosted at the expense of international aid. The Prime Minister, she wrote in her resignation letter, would find it “impossible” to deliver on his commitment to maintain development spending in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine with the reduced budget.
She went on to say that she actually supported the government’s ambition to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, but that it shouldn’t all come from her own department’s budget. As to what alternative sources of cash might be available to achieve that end, Dodds was less than forthcoming.
The surprising thing in all of this is not that one minister has resigned, but that only one has done so.
International aid is a touchstone of socialist purity; no Labour delegate to annual conference was ever booed off the platform for advocating higher amounts of UK taxpayers’ cash going to the developing world. Dodds’s departure might be expected, therefore, to place additional grassroots pressure on her former ministerial colleagues who continue to take the King’s shilling and ministerial driver.
But that is an internal party concern, and the Prime Minister has his eyes set on larger, more important audiences, namely the British electorate and world leaders. Fresh from an unexpectedly triumphant visit to the White House and basking in praise from President Trump, he will (or should) spend little time worrying about Dodds’ resignation.
He should recognise that ministerial resignations can frequently be useful mediums by which this or that policy can be communicated to the public. Voters who might not have registered Starmer’s defence announcement earlier this week might well take note of headlines announcing the departure of a minister objecting to it. And it is likely that, aside from a few dozen Green voters and maybe a few hundred Liberal Democrats, most voters will warmly approve of Starmer’s newfound political priorities.
Absent of principled resignations, Labour risks looking like an uninspiring accountancy firm whose employees can’t be bothered arguing with decisions taken by their leadership. Now Dodds has thrown down a challenge, and perhaps even – to use that unhelpful phrase – opened up a debate about the rights and wrongs of sending billions overseas at a time when ordinary citizens at homes are struggling with high heating and food bills.
Given his record on kicking the Left of his own party, the Prime Minister is likely to welcome the extra attention his decision on defence spending and international aid cuts will now incur.
One other point: with apologies to Ms Dodds, she does not represent any sort of threat to Starmer’s leadership, nor is she likely to become a rallying point for party discontents. She is not Geoffrey Howe, nor is she Robin Cook, both of whose resignations proved unhelpful to the prime ministers they served.
On the contrary, her resignation has only confirmed this week as the most successful Starmer has enjoyed since becoming prime minister.
Political predictions are a hazardous pastime, but I think it likely that Keir Starmer will just about survive the resignation of Anneliese Dodds as international development minister. In fact, she has probably done him a favour.
Ms Dodds, who once unsuccessfully occupied the senior post of shadow chancellor earlier on in Starmer’s leadership of the Labour Party, was appointed as a Minister of state for International Development, as well as for Women and Equalities, following the party’s general election triumph last year. Until yesterday she was entitled to attend Cabinet, though was not a full member.
No doubt the voters in her Oxford East constituency will back their MP in her principled stand against Starmer’s announcement this week that the defence budget is to be boosted at the expense of international aid. The Prime Minister, she wrote in her resignation letter, would find it “impossible” to deliver on his commitment to maintain development spending in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine with the reduced budget.
She went on to say that she actually supported the government’s ambition to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, but that it shouldn’t all come from her own department’s budget. As to what alternative sources of cash might be available to achieve that end, Dodds was less than forthcoming.
The surprising thing in all of this is not that one minister has resigned, but that only one has done so.
International aid is a touchstone of socialist purity; no Labour delegate to annual conference was ever booed off the platform for advocating higher amounts of UK taxpayers’ cash going to the developing world. Dodds’s departure might be expected, therefore, to place additional grassroots pressure on her former ministerial colleagues who continue to take the King’s shilling and ministerial driver.
But that is an internal party concern, and the Prime Minister has his eyes set on larger, more important audiences, namely the British electorate and world leaders. Fresh from an unexpectedly triumphant visit to the White House and basking in praise from President Trump, he will (or should) spend little time worrying about Dodds’ resignation.
He should recognise that ministerial resignations can frequently be useful mediums by which this or that policy can be communicated to the public. Voters who might not have registered Starmer’s defence announcement earlier this week might well take note of headlines announcing the departure of a minister objecting to it. And it is likely that, aside from a few dozen Green voters and maybe a few hundred Liberal Democrats, most voters will warmly approve of Starmer’s newfound political priorities.
Absent of principled resignations, Labour risks looking like an uninspiring accountancy firm whose employees can’t be bothered arguing with decisions taken by their leadership. Now Dodds has thrown down a challenge, and perhaps even – to use that unhelpful phrase – opened up a debate about the rights and wrongs of sending billions overseas at a time when ordinary citizens at homes are struggling with high heating and food bills.
Given his record on kicking the Left of his own party, the Prime Minister is likely to welcome the extra attention his decision on defence spending and international aid cuts will now incur.
One other point: with apologies to Ms Dodds, she does not represent any sort of threat to Starmer’s leadership, nor is she likely to become a rallying point for party discontents. She is not Geoffrey Howe, nor is she Robin Cook, both of whose resignations proved unhelpful to the prime ministers they served.
On the contrary, her resignation has only confirmed this week as the most successful Starmer has enjoyed since becoming prime minister.